SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(Cal) 245

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
PRABIR KUMAR SAMANTA, J.
Sri Rajendra Kumar Thakkar & Anr.
Vs.
Raniganj Municipality & Ors.
W.P. No. 5808(W) of 1999
Decided On : May 03, 1999

Advocates Appeared:
Malabika Roy. Anima Maity for the petitioner;
Durgadas Roy for the Municipality.

Municipality cannot decide property title disputes and must provide valid reasons for issuing a stop work notice.

Headnote:

Stop Work Notice - Municipal Act - The court set aside the stop work notice issued to the petitioner under section 217 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993, as the notice was issued without disclosing any reason and the dispute regarding property title cannot be decided by the municipality.

Fact of the Case:

The writ petition is against a notice for stop work issued to the petitioner under section 217 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993, based on an approved building plan. The notice was issued without disclosing any reason for the stop work.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the stop work notice to be bad in law as the dispute regarding property title cannot be decided by the municipality. The court set aside the notice under section 217 of the said Act.

Issues: Dispute over property title and validity of the stop work notice under section 217 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993.

Ratio Decidendi: The municipality cannot decide disputes related to property title, and a stop work notice must be issued with valid reasons.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and set aside the stop work notice issued to the petitioner.

JUDGMENT : -

Prabir Kumar Samanta, J.: Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties.

2. This writ petition is directed against a notice for stop work issued to the writ petitioner under section-2I7 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993. From the impugned notice, it is evident that the building plan of the writ petitioner was approved under Plan Case No. BRM-138/97-98. It further appears that the aforesaid impugned stop work notice was issued to the writ petitioner without disclosing any reason whatsoever for which such notice was issued. Mr. Roy, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-Municipality submitted an instruction that such notice was issued as because a complaint was lodged with the respondent Municipality that the property upon which the construction was being made by the petitioner on the basis of the approved plan, is a wake of property.

3. Considered such submissions. In my view, the impugned notice of stop work is absolutely bad in law inasmuch as if there be any dispute as to the title in respect of the property in question then the same cannot be decided by the respondent-Municipality.

4. Accordingly, the impugned notice under section 217 of the said Act dated 13th December, 1997 issued to the writ petitioner is set aside.

5. This writ petition is thus allowed.

6. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties as expeditiously as possible.

Appeal is allowed.


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top